So, I think I want to put a scope on my K31, however I am a little unsure or which style bases and rings to use. The mount that I have been looking at is a clamp on sold by Graf & Son's, but appears to only accept the 3/8th style rings? I was under the impression these dovetail style rings were typical of airguns and .22's. Are they going to stand up to the recoil of this gun, or do I need to either look into a different mounting system or some kind of conversion for this one so it accepts standard weaver style or something along those lines?

This is the one I have, available in steel or aluminum. Mine's steel; I have it mounted to the gun, but don't have a scope on mine yet either.

It accepts only 3/8 dovetail rings. I wish it were cut for Weaver type but that's not how they made it.

I'm sure a good set of rings will hold fine, the K-31 really doesn't kick all that hard and the mount has a recoil stop at the front to prevent it from sliding out from under the scope during recoil.

I think St. Marie recommends Millett rings, but I'm sure there are probably better ones than those available. I don't like the narrow claw on the ones I've seen. Just my opinion, and I've never used them so take that with a grain of salt...

Edited again to add:

I just measured my St. Marie mount. The dovetail measures .475" wide across the top of the dovetail, about .400" wide at the bottom, and about .100" high.

( I don't know how the industry determines allowable tolerances for grooved receivers on .22s, but 3/8" equals .375", if anybody cares or needs to know.)

I should mention I used a 2.5X Leupold Scout Scope since the Darrell's mount is so far forward. It worked well, but that could be a limitation. I got other stuff from St. Marie and would recommend his products highly. Check out the various options @ http://www.swissrifles.com/~swiss-sights/I don't know how active he is now, but Pierre St. Marie probably knows more about these rifles than anybody so that's another reason to go with one of his mounts.

I agree with Jono about the high quality of St. Marie mounts, and I wouldn't hesitate to go with Darrell's either, if I wanted a scout-type setup. He also has a great reputation.

Supertool's link shows a great looking setup that accepts Weaver rings and it mounts the scope centered over the bore- until now, I have never heard of it. It's a bit pricey, but would probably be the best one to use if you can bring yourself to drill and tap your K-31.

I could probably do it, but it would make me cry like a little girl!

I think I'll go with Koskin's suggestion for Warne 7.3s on my clamp-on St. Marie and let you know how they work.

Well considering that I have seen some K-31 sniper and match rifles selling from between $3,000 and $5,000 with optics, it shouldn't be hard to drill and tap a $150-$300 K-31 for a scope. May not like it, but it's easier.

I would have done it a couple of years ago, but the safety on the K-31 is unacceptable for a hunting rifle to me. I do love the trigger though.

I would like to sporterize a M-95 Steyer, and put a low power EER scope on it.

A democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch. A republic is a well armed sheep disputing the results.--Benjamin Franklin

Koshkin, are the 7.3 Warne's available through any of the major commercial retailers or is that something I would need to special order? I dont have much experience with Warne stuff as I've always used weaver style mounts.

[QUOTE=BeltFed]Well considering that I have seen some K-31 sniper and match rifles selling from between $3,000 and $5,000 with optics, it shouldn't be hard to drill and tap a $150-$300 K-31 for a scope. May not like it, but it's easier. [QUOTE]

No, it's a personal matter for me, as I don't really care to see old military rifles permanantly altered unnecessarily, mainly from the standpoint of trying to preserve a bit of the history behind them. I'm not a fanatic about it though; it's your rifle to do with as you please.

It's just that today's Mausers and Springfield 1903s are tomorrow's Brown Bess muskets, at least to some degree.

Yes, I would also prefer not to permanently alter the rifle by drillin and tapping it for a scope. I am curious as to how other people have faired with the warne dovetail setup? any problems with recoil loosening the rings from the base? It doesn't really matter to me if the setup is intended for rimfire guns AS LONG AS IT WORKS. There is a great deal of recoil difference between a .22 and the 7.5x55 Swiss though.

JonoMT, yes, I find that taking the safety off (and on) is a little awkward and slow for many hunting situations. While it is a very positive safety, it just requires to much movement to manipulate it. That's why I'm thinking about sporterizing the Steyer M95. The safety can be manipulated by the thumb without changing your grip. It doesn't have as nice a trigger, but the safety is faster to work.

A democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch. A republic is a well armed sheep disputing the results.--Benjamin Franklin

Yes, I would also prefer not to permanently alter the rifle by drillin and tapping it for a scope. I am curious as to how other people have faired with the warne dovetail setup? any problems with recoil loosening the rings from the base? It doesn't really matter to me if the setup is intended for rimfire guns AS LONG AS IT WORKS. There is a great deal of recoil difference between a .22 and the 7.5x55 Swiss though.

I ordered the Warne rings yesterday, and have no worries about them moving. They would be no more susceptible from loosening under repeated recoil than any other ring which uses a screw or nut to clamp the ring to the base, including all the Mongo tactical heavyweights.

As far as the rings sliding forward while snug, because they don't have a cross slot to lock into as Weavers do, (which is in reality more of a case in which the gun/mount is being jerked out backwards from under the scope/rings with every shot), the integral recoil stop protruding from the top front of the dovetail would easily prevent that. This is assuming that you mount the front ring in contact with the stop to begin with.

RONK, I hadn't thought about the integral recoil stop, with all of that considered and the fact that the 7.5X55 is hardly a monster recoiling round, I think the Warne style rings should do just fine for my setup. I'll post some pictures once I get everything put together. Thanks for the input everybody.

I hope to have my new Warne rings this week, just not sure what scope I'll put in them though. I'm glad you started this thread. It reminded and motivated me to get my K-31 scoped up finally. I've had the stupid mount for a couple years now, basically collecting dust!

RONK, what scopes were you looking at for your setup? I have been wrestling with what to put on mine and can't seem to make up my mind. I like several of the Zeiss Conquest offerings, but I'm not sure I want to spend that kind of money. I would really like to get something with the German #4 style reticle, but that my be too limiting as far as selection and price are concerned.

RONK, what scopes were you looking at for your setup? I have been wrestling with what to put on mine and can't seem to make up my mind. I like several of the Zeiss Conquest offerings, but I'm not sure I want to spend that kind of money. I would really like to get something with the German #4 style reticle, but that my be too limiting as far as selection and price are concerned.

I haven't decided yet, and I hate to swap out any of the scopes I already have, as I need to keep them on the rifles they're already on.

Earl's suggestion for that Burris should be about perfect without getting too pricey.

I need to sell some rifles so I can buy more scopes!

(No overtime at work these days...)

BTW, the Warnes came in the other day, and they seem like decent quality rings. I mounted them on the St. Marie base, and they fit nicely and solidly-no worries there, except to get used to the offset mounting arrangement.

Which brings up the point that whatever scope I mount should have a good long tube for mounting versatility and an adequate "eyebox" and eye relief....

BTW, the Warnes came in the other day, and they seem like decent quality rings. I mounted them on the St. Marie base, and they fit nicely and solidly-no worries there, except to get used to the offset mounting arrangement.

Which brings up the point that whatever scope I mount should have a good long tube for mounting versatility and an adequate "eyebox" and eye relief....

Yes, I figured adjustment would be a key factor as well as eye relief...I suppose all the more reasons to look into the Conquest. The fixed eye relief is great, and the 1.8x5.5x38 model looks to have a long tube which should provide adequate room for adjustment.

How does the ring height on your setup look? I assume you probably went with high rings? Do you think that a 40mm objective will fit alright without the rear graduated sight getting in the way?

I went with the Medium height rings, and they are plenty high to clear the sight with a 40 mm. objective scope at least by the looks of things. I'll try to get a scope of some sort mounted in them this week, maybe even tomorrow afternoon if I get a little free time.

I'll let you know how it turns out.

( I'm not sure, but depending on the scope, I may even be able to use the rear sights if I wish). Not sure how good a cheekweld I'll be able to get for the scope, though. We'll soon see, I guess...

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum